"Math problem: Let p1 = the probability that there might be a ticking
time bomb somewhere. Let p2 = probability that the prisoner in custody

has information about the bomb. Let p3 = the probability that we could

get accurate information from the prisoner about the bomb. Let
p4 = the probability that we could get and use the information in time,

and let n = the expected number of lives that could be saved.

What are the minimum values of p1, p2, p3, p4, and n which would
justify the use of torture?"

An interesting effort to use pseudomath to dehumanize a decision. It
gives math a bad name.

Pretty much any bad decision can be justified by simplifying it into
only the variables you want to consider. Why not take into
consideration the emotional and personal toll on the torturers, the
stress caused to troopers who feel morally repulsed by the knowledge
that their country tortures people, the future impact on diplomacy, the
lost future 'bargaining rights' with the host countries of the victims,
the economic impacts of dealing with countries that have trade
ministers who abhor torture, or the entire slippery slope of creeping
change in how wars are conducted. If we condone torture in any form, we
have already begue to become who we are fighting against, and have
accepted and adopted the very standards that we profess to be fighting
against. How can we continue to protest the WTC plane crashes as being
'wrong', as its only a few steps further down the road to conducting
terrorism ourselves on that same scale.

We become them. Fit that into your probability model.

--riverman